The UN Human Rights Council has passed a resolution condemning “stereotyping of religion”. It’s a move that flouts freedom of expression – and it was sponsored by the United States. Roy W Brown reports
The United States has backed a new UN resolution on free expression which would be considered unconstitutional under its First Amendment — which protects freedom of expression and bans sanctioning of religions.

The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.

While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.

“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”

France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.

On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.

“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

Finally, the EU encouraged the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Frank LaRue, to continue his work. This was an indirect reference to the attacks made against LaRue by several OIC members at the June session of the Human Rights Council. (Read more here)

The Council stopped short of repeating the OIC’s criticisms of the Special Rapporteur but encouraged him to stick to his mandate. That indicates that he should continue to focus on violations of free expression, rather than purported “abuses” of that right.

While this new resolution reflects new efforts by the US to broker compromises between Western and Muslim nations, it also represents an ominous crack in the defences of free expression.

21 responses to “US hypocrisy on free speech at United Nations”

First off I would like to say wonderful blog! I had a quick question that I’d like to ask if you don’t
mind. I was curious to find out how you center yourself and clear your mind prior to writing.

I’ve had difficulty clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out there. I do take pleasure in writing but it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes tend to be wasted just trying to figure out how to begin. Any suggestions or tips? Cheers!

[…] The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship) […]

[…] The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship) […]

The main deliberative organ is the General Assembly which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The main deliberative organ is the General Assembly which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

You may be technically correct, Steve, but I’m pretty sure that the O.I.C. don’t see it that way! According to Human Rights Watch: the Human Rights Council “is foundering for two reasons: first, the role played by the O.I.C. which has fought doggedly within the council to shield states (other than Israel) from criticism…” That is the nature of the beast!!

The author of this article and some of those making comments need to gain an understanding of what defamation means. It’s simply to make false accusations. If we are going to complain that we can’t go around making false accusations about religions, we have a serious bigotry problem.

For Doug and shatterface: you can defame something that’s false by saying that it’s something that it’s not. And the resolution isn’t about blasphemy, it’s about defamation. Whether it’s false or whether people disagree doesn’t come into it. Disagree if you wish but don’t go “stereotyping” for the benefit of misinforming people. In fact, I’d suggest that it’s of benefit to be accurate in explaining something if it’s false.

For barriejohn: Those Islamists who pour out bile against the Jews would be subject to this resolution since that would be considered as defamation.

It would be nice to see a link to the actual text of this resolution. I’m worried about it, but I need to work out exactly how worried I should be. Also, I need to know whether the OIC will continue to pursue its “defamation of religions” resolutions or whether there’s a deal whereby this supersedes them. If there’s no such deal, what has been gained?

In short, I appreciate the article, but a much deeper analysis of the factual situation is required before we can really draw conclusions about the significance of this development.

It does now seem that organised religion itself has become a creeping form of universal terror.There seems to be a fallacy that religions and being religious imbues people with standards that are superior to those who are not attached. There are many, maybe a majority, that believe in a Supreme Being but do not accept the doctrines of any of the organised religions. Surely what benefits mankind is for people to be moral,ethical and in support of goodness and kindness and the law of the land but it seems to me, from daily observation that the organised religions do not have those qualities.What they do seem to have is an arrogant holier than thou attitude,full of self aggrandisement and a love of money and above all getting high if they can exercise power over the minds of others. Doctrine is not morality.

The most important thing to remember is that we can only lead by example. Making sure that the West is secular and rational is the only necessity. The culture war will be won or lost in our schools and universities. Here we must not compromise. All the rest is foreign aid and accommodation while the rest of the world catches up socially.